one idea: instead of multiple text inputs, do 1 textarea and just put a placeholder "one rss feed per line". then people could copy/paste a whole bunch of feeds, and your form would be significantly simpler!
The big difference here is something the user sees versus the developers as in your example. For users I think the answer is almost always, less is better. For the developers also, but there’s a bit more leeway.
According to this ted talk[1] he wasn’t. He led dangerously unprepared missions and ignored locals advice. Roald Admudsen was more successful and did it without the drama.
This business professor, selling his books on leadership in a Ted x (!) talk lost me when he called Amundson "forgotten". Like hell, no, Amundson is not at all forgotten. And Shackleton is famous for saving everyone on his doomed Endurance expedition under extreme circumstances.
Only measuring leadership, as im the Ted x(!) talk, with achievement of a stated, and up to then impossible, goals and ignoring a leader who saves everyone from death is at best short sighted, at worst ignorant. Did I mention the guy in the talk is a business professor with a book on leadership?
Cannot be clickbaity if the title precisely explains what the paper is about.
The problem with science dissemination is not that it's too accessible but rather the polar opposite: even experts find reading some (many? Most?) papers truly dreadful because of the terse and dryness but one does it for the knowledge; on the other hand everyone else absolutely needs to rely on "science popularisers" to even half-understand half of what a paper is about. And that's the problem: the general scientific understanding is as good as the scientific rigor of the most understandable/entertaining science populariser out there.
To clarify: if person A is extremely diligent and precise but not too enjoyable to watch, they will get X views and maybe a limited (but positive) impact, on the other hand person B is not very diligent, cuts corners or even outright lies but is very easy and fun to watch, they reach N more people than person A, having an absolute huge (albeit negative) impact.
If the authors had a way to write both for experts and, somehow, have control on how that knowledge is available to the rest, the delta between the two methods of dissemination would be minimal (or at least controlled).
The title appears to work in the context of ACS Nano. Has 200+ citations, and cited by several other 200+ papers. Maybe double the average ACS Nano citations of 87 (Exaly says 1.5 million citations on 17,200 papers https://exaly.com/journal/12906/acs-nano) If other authors found it click baity, they found it click bait in a way that deserved inclusion in their own work above the norm of ACS Nano.
Yes it would have. And the problem with science dissemination isn't click-baity titles, it's a combination of poorly executed science (hence the reproducibility and retraction crisis in many field), the abject, shameless hyperbole spewed by PR departments, and a lack of genuine scientific education
Note that the title accurately describes what the article is about. As opposed to clickbait. Clickbait would have been "You would never believe what we put into graphene!".
If the paper is accurate, it's actilly making fun of all the serious-sounding papers adding whatever to graphene and publishing it as noteworthy results. After reading way more papers that I wish I had to, I can say I would prefer if all paper titles were this accessible and honest.
And there we got the problem, a papers title not sounding serious doesn't mean it isn't — and more importantly: the opposite is true as well.
The credibility problems science has is because instead of replicating the contents of a paper people have seveloped and over-reliance on other peripheral metrics like which papers it has been published in, p-values and such. Relying on the seriousness of titles is just another of those distractions.
As opposed to inscrutable two-line titles full of the field’s buzzwords on top of papers that you have to parse for hours to realize the idea and results could have been written in one sentence?
Maybe I’ve read too many applied machine learning papers. As long as the funny title isn’t dishonest, I’m all for it.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand